Is An Unbeliever Condemned By Participating In Communion?

A very nice discussion with a fellow believer.

First, dear brother, I really enjoy your blog and appreciate the powerful points you make for the sake of the Church. This issue of unbelievers and the Lord's Supper is personal for me as our house church in a Hindu neighborhood in Chicago deals with this issue often. I appreciate your stand that unbelief is a disqualification for taking the Lord’s Supper and agree wholeheartedly with it. However, there are some in house church settings who do not hold your view and say that since an unbeliever does not really understand, he is not guilty of unbelief, merely ignorance.

I would be shocked if some in house churches didn’t disagree with me. Such an idea of closed communion is extremely old and widespread.

In your hypothetical senario there is no way for the unbeliever to know the bread/wine, torilla/chips, whatever is part of our special commemoration (or sacrament or memorial or wherever you fall on that issue) of the Lord's death. It is sitting on the table as part of the meal and there is no leader saying, "this is the body..." Of course the unbeliever can eat freely - the bread/wine aren't inherently special. They become special for the Church in that time of remembering the Lord's death until He comes.

Yes, that is why it matters not that an unbeliever consumes the communion elements: it is nothing more than bread and “wine”.

Your use of John 6 is interesting and I like the noting of the foreshadowing here. But, John 6 is before Christ's institution of the Lord's Supper and is therefore not a valid case.

Actually John 6 is an extremely valid case. The “historical event” which is recorded in John 6 may have occurred before the formal institution of the Lord’s Supper, the story was recorded by John some 50-60 years after the event took place. All Christians who originally read the Gospel of John would have been quite familiar with communion. The Feeding of the 5000 appears in the other Gospels, but John’s version includes Jesus’ exposition of the “miracle” in which the Eucharistic aspect of the “miracle” is emphasized.

The time of the year is Passover (Jn 6:4)

“Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.” (Jn 6:27)

“Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.” (Jn 6:31)

“Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.” (Jn 6:32-40)

“Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. I am that bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.” (Jn 6:47-58)

Perhaps there is some deep point that I am missing in Acts 27, but all I see there is a blessing and having some bread. Blessing your bread doesn't make it a communion meal in the ecclesiastical sense.

One of the central themes of Luke-Acts is the Jewish attitude towards meal fellowship with Gentiles. This issue was central to early Christianity because of the centrality of Communion and what it meant in terms of the fellowship of believers (both Jew and Gentile) united in Christ. Luke is continually reinforcing the notion that it is okay for observant Jews to fellowship with Gentiles during meals.

A literary device that Luke uses in his work is parallels. Luke depicts Jesus in a particular way in the Gospel of Luke. In Acts, Luke portrays Jesus’ apostles in a manner which parallel that of Jesus (see Peter in Ac 9-12). Paul also portrayed in a manner which likens him to Jesus.

Allow me to give an excerpt from my thesis:

"Just as Jesus makes a last journey to Jerusalem under divine necessity and is not understood by the disciples (Lk 9:51-19:28), so Paul makes a last journey to Jerusalem under divine necessity and is not understood by his friends (Ac 19:21-21:17). Just as Jesus receives a good reception and people praise God for what they have seen (Lk 19:37), so Paul receives a good reception and God is glorified for the things done among the Gentiles (Ac 21:17-20). Just as Jesus goes into the temple with a positive attitude to it (Lk 19:45-48), so Jesus goes into the temple with a positive attitude to it (Ac 21:26). Just as Jesus is seized by a mob (Lk 22:54), so Paul is seized by a mob (Ac 21:30). Just as Jesus experiences four trials (Sanhedrin, Pilate, Herod Antipas, Pilate; Lk 22:26; 23:1; 23:8; 23:13, so Paul experiences four trials (Sanhedrin, Felix, Festus, Herod Agrippa; Ac 23, 24, 25, 26). Both are charged with sedition (Lk. 23:2; Acts 24:5). Both are sent to Jewish representatives of their own districts (Herod for Galilee in Lk. 23:6-7, and Agrippa for Cilicia in Acts 23:24-25). Both are deemed innocent by Roman government officials (Lk. 23:15, 22; Acts 25:25; 26:31). Just as Pilate states that he will release Jesus (Lk 23:16, 22), so Agrippa says: “This man could have been released” (Ac 26:32). Both Jesus’ and Paul’s ministry ends on the note of the fulfillment of Scripture (Lk 24; Ac 28)."

Therefore, notice the similarities between Jesus’ statement in Luke and Paul’s statement in Acts:

“And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake [it], and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.” (Lk 22:19)

“And when he had thus spoken, he took bread, and gave thanks to God in presence of them all: and when he had broken [it], he began to eat.” (Ac 27:35)

This parallel is reinforced in Acts 27 by Luke’s statements that those on the ship are saved by God because of Paul having divine favor. Notice this verse:

“Wherefore I pray you to take [some] meat: for this is for your health: for there shall not an hair fall from the head of any of you.” (Ac 27:34)

Thus we have a parallel “Last Supper” in Acts in the context of Luke’s focus on the theme of meal fellowship with Gentiles.

But, the more pressing question for our fellowship among Hindus in Chicago is whether or not to let them participate in the Communion time. Some members of our church insist that the Lord allowed Judas to participate. Indeed He did, but in my view, He let Judas participate as part of Judas' just condemnation, not for his salvation!

Is there any evidence to support that hypothesis?

If we say that Judas was a non-believer and that one should not allow a non-believer to partake of communion, then Jesus would have sinned by allowing Judas to partake, regardless of His reasons for doing so.

Of course, Judas was not “condemned” because of his communion participation but because of his betrayal. Even then, if Judas would have repented after betraying Jesus, he still would have been saved, communion participation or not.

Who wants to rely on the example of Judas to support an action by their unbelieving friend?! In the very context of Judas' participation in the Lord's Supper, Jesus says, "It would have been better for that man if he had never been born!" No please, do not use Judas as justification.

I think Judas is a good example for this issue because of who he is and what he did.

Judas is a perfect example of this passage, which you must deal with on this issue: "Whoever therefore eats the bread of drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord...For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself." (See whole passage of 1Cor.11:27-32)

Yes, the issue becomes hinges on what Paul means when he uses “unworthy” (anaxios).

You may not be aware of my previous article on the subject: When Communion Is Open And When It Is Closed

Essentially, my conclusion is that the “unworthy” manner on which Paul focuses is divisions within the body: one who partakes of communion while practicing division within the body is participating in an “unworthy” manner (which is why I consider it 180 degrees wrong and even blasphemous to deny another believer fellowship and access to communion).

1) In truth, no one is really “worthy” of communion with God in Christ – that’s the point.

2) An unbeliever is damned whether they participate in communion or not – that’s also the point.

3) There is nothing in this passage even suggests that Paul is referring to unbelievers. Indeed, it is quite evident that Paul is referring to believers because that is his point. A believer (a member of Christ’s body) is behaving like an unbeliever (a non-member of Christ’s body) by causing divisions within the body. It is this hypocritical stance which is Paul’s focus. This would not apply to an unbeliever.

I agree that if someone is hungry and we have bread and wine we ought to share. But, when that bread and wine is serving His purpose as "the bread and cup of the Lord," it ought to be reserved for those who can discern it's worth and those who can discern themselves in light of it.

I am a Baptist and not a Roman Catholic or Lutheran. I understand that the bread and “wine” are symbolic and never literally Jesus’ body and blood. We all buy the elements at the store and they never take on any particular importance in of themselves. Because their importance is only symbolic, such an importance is only reality to the believer who both understands the importance and is actually participating. To say that condemnation is put upon an unbeliever who consumes the elements is nonsense. How many believers do you know thought they were saved, participated in communion, but later were convicted by the Holy Spirit that they were never saved? I know quite a few. Are they damned despite their current belief?

Again, I am not suggesting that communion be generally open to unbelievers. Rather, my argument here is that, given the scenario presented to me by my friend who is pastor of a house church, there are particular situations which would negate the general practice of communion for believers only. And, like a good evangelical, I base my conclusion on Jesus and the Scriptures.

I agree that 1 Cor. 11 is really Paul addressing division. But, we must note that Paul wrote 1 Cor. 11:27-32 with believers in mind.

Ah, you have read my article. That’s what I get for not reading the whole argument before responding.

I say that if Paul saw a moment when even believers should not take part in the Lord's Supper then certainly unbelievers should not. And if he never directly addressed the idea of an unbeliever taking the Lord's Supper then (and I know this is an argument from silence, but the opposition has only an argument from silence as well) I assume the idea of an unbeliever taking the Lord's Supper never entered his mind because it is so ludicrous. I leave it those who would allow an unbeliever to take the Lord's Supper to show me reason from Scripture to allow it: I guarantee that there is none.

Again, see my arguments from John 6, Acts 27, 1 Corinthians 8:4-13 and Matthew 12:1-8.

Some in our church have said, "if we let them participate in the gospel, but taking the Lord's Supper then they will experience the gospel preached.." My answer: why don't be also then baptize them! No, the Lord's Supper is for the Church, not for the world. If we give it to the world then we surrender a beautiful gift from our Lord to us and this would be most offensive to our Holy God.

Well, I don’t make that argument. The conclusion to my argument is based solely upon the given scenario.

Share bread and wine, sure. But, do not share the body and blood of our Lord lest it be profaned.

That’s the point. We are not sharing the body and blood. It’s impossible to share the body and blood of Christ. When an unbeliever consumes communion bread and “wine”, it is simply bread and “wine” and not Christ’s body and blood. I can think of no way and no verse which would argue the possibility of an unbeliever consuming Christ’s body and blood.

I believe that you are in agreement with me. But, I write because I am concerned by hearing Judas used as an example. He was not just eating bread because he was hungry. He was taking part in the rite. And that was part of his condemnation. Far be it from us to lead our unbelieving friends down the path of Judas!

No, I do not think that his participation was a part of his condemnation. His betrayal of Jesus led him to whatever condemnation he experienced. Again, Jesus invited Judas to the Lord’s Supper. Jesus gave Judas the choice sop.

“Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped [it]. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave [it] to Judas Iscariot, [the son] of Simon.” (John 13:26)

If we say that allowing an unbeliever to participate in communion is wrong, then what Jesus did was wrong. Furthermore, if we say that such an action brings condemnation to the unbeliever then Jesus was guilty of premeditated murder. Not only did He invite Judas to the supper but gave him a piece to eat. Imagine that some believer brings an unbeliever to church and tricks the unsuspecting unbeliever into consuming the communion elements in order that he could be damned!

I do understand your point and the concerns behind it. It is obvious that it all comes from your love of others and that should be commended. So allow me to alleviate your fears:

1) An unbeliever who participates in communion is not damned by doing so. He or she is damned because they are an unbeliever. An unbeliever who does not participate in communion is still damned. An unbeliever who participates in communion but later becomes a believer is not damned.

2) I have not found any Scriptural evidence which points to the idea that an unbeliever is damned because he participates in communion.

3) Again, Judas was not in any way condemned because of his communion participation but because of his betrayal. I do not see where the Scriptures say that he was condemned for such participation. Again, if he was condemned for such participation this would make Jesus a premeditated murderer.

In a traditional church the pastor can say a little schpeel and be done with it. In house church, when there are 12 people and an unbeliever and we take it in the context of a whole meal, it can be quite a bit more awkward, but I do not see why we would water down an ancient church tradition for the sake of personal comfort.

If a church tradition is contrary to Scripture we should not simply water it down; we should remove it entirely. Nevertheless, such idealism has to be tempered with pragmatism. Sure, I would like for the Church to remove entirely the idea that participation in communion by unbelievers causes condemnation, but that is not going to happen any time soon and I am not so interested in the subject to claim it as a cause. Perhaps such an idea waters down the Gospel message but it has never done so to any significant degree that necessarily demands my attention.

Now closed communion for other believers is another matter entirely. I will take that up as a cause. I refuse to belong to any church that denies communion to other believers who are not being disciplined for sin. To deny another believer communion simply due to their association with another local church or denominational tradition is arrogant blasphemy to me. Such a prohibition runs counter to entire gospel message and purpose of communion itself. It is the unworthy hubris which Paul is directly and specifically attacking in 1 Corinthians 11. That is a hill which I will die on.

Though I might consider option 4 for the sake of not embarrassing a particular unbeliever if a situation with an individual seemed to merit it. Again, thank you for your helpful blog and may the grace of our Lord Jesus be with your spirit, brother.

Thank you so much. God’s Blessings on you and your church.